Re: Invisible letter (was Re: a character for an unknown character)

Quote/Cytat - David Corbett <corbett.dav_at_husky.neu.edu> (Wed 21 Dec
2016 05:56:27 PM CET):

> Couldn’t you use U+1D52 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL O?

In our corpus COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER O sometimes occurs in its
combining function, it seemed more elegant to use a uniform encoding.
But you are right, in the example quoted MODIFIER LETTER SMALL O could
be also used.

Regards

Janusz

> (I changed the subject line because the invisible letter proposal is not
> relevant to the question about a lacuna character.)
>
>> I strongly support this. In our historical corpus of Polish
>>
>> http://korpusy.klf.uw.edu.pl/en/IMPACT_GT_2/
>>
>> we have in particular words ending with 'COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER
>> O' (U+0366).
>>
>> We had to precede the character with NBSP as the vase, but to preserve
>> the correct segmentation into words we had to treat NBSP as a letter.
>

-- 
Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień -  Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra  
Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department)
jsbien@uw.edu.pl, jsbien@mimuw.edu.pl, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/